Federal court rejects Texas' redistricting maps

AUSTIN — A Washington federal court rejected the state’s redistricting maps Tuesday, a major setback for Attorney General Greg Abbott, Amarillo’s Sen. Kel Seliger and other leaders of the Republican- dominated Texas Legislature.

By a 2-1 vote, the panel denied what is known as “preclearance” to the congressional and legislative maps on grounds the redrawn districts do not comply with the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 landmark federal legislation aimed at giving racial minorities an opportunity to choose candidates of their choice.

Abbott said he would appeal the “flawed decision” to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision extends the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits intended by Congress and beyond the boundaries imposed by the Constitution,” Abbott said in a statement.

“The Washington, D.C., court’s decision applies to the maps originally enacted by the Texas Legislature, so the November elections will proceed as planned under the interim maps drawn by the federal court in San Antonio.”

This year, members of the federal court in San Antonio, under guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, drew interim legislative and congressional maps for this year’s election.

Seliger, a central figure in the redistricting fight because he and Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, chaired the Senate and House redistricting committees, said he was just as disappointed by Tuesday’s ruling.

“I am disappointed because it connotes some racial discrimination, which is not the case,” Seliger said.

This was a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act because nonwhites — particularly Hispanics — accounted for nearly 90 percent of the population growth of the past decade that allowed Texas to gain four congressional districts, they said.

Because of its long history of racial discrimination, Texas and 15 other states must get preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice or from a federal court before any redrawn maps or voting laws go into effect.

Despite the legal setback, Seliger said he is confident that if the Supreme Court accepts the state’s appeal, a majority of the nine justices will overturn Tuesday’s ruling.

Opponents of the maps said they are confident they will ultimately prevail because the law is on their side.

“This is a point on the road that the Republican Party and Greg Abbott must face,” state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, said during a conference call with reporters.

“The courts have been very consistent on these maps,” said Martinez Fischer, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the leading plaintiff in the redistricting battle.

Although Abbott said the Nov. 6 general election is unaffected by Tuesday’s ruling, San Antonio attorney Jose Garza, who represents the caucus in the redistricting fight, said he is not convinced and will look into the possibility of challenging the maps.

“We’re not foreclosing that as a potential option,” Garza said.

Nina Perales, lead redistricting attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, another leading plaintiff in the redistricting battle, said she is equally confident the state will lose the appeal.

“Today’s decision is yet another nail in the coffin of the redistricting plans enacted by the Texas Legislature,” Perales said. “The state should stop wasting money on further litigation and focus on securing fair election maps for all Texans.”

Although Abbott said he will immediately take the necessary steps to appeal, the Supreme Court’s decision is not expected soon because the court is in its annual summer recess.

However, the same lower court in Washington is also expected to rule this week on the constitutionality of the Texas voter ID law, another measure the Legislature passed last year over the objections of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups.

Abbott has said he is confident the state will win its voter ID fight, but his office is ready to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court if the state loses.

Martinez Fischer and other leading opponents of voter ID said they also are confident the lower court will deem the voter ID law unconstitutional.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So, do these Federal Judges expect us to let them redraw the boundaries, leave them as is, or even want us to go back to the 1965 boundaries?

I guess the Republicans didn't protest enough when the Democrats changed the boundaries when they were in control.

It is kind of comical to see each political group jockeying for control. When one has it, they will do anything to keep control, even protesting so much they go to court to stop it and also from keeping our borders from being protected just for the almighty vote.

Lmao cwjjohn why aren't you praying for them as you usually do? Oh, is it because they disagreed with you? Awww...never fear the GOP hasn't lost control on Texas; they're like a 3 yr old with a stranglehold on a cat. Only death would part the two.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Why thank you for your post and being a mediator/referee not only here but also for your forum for professionals.

I wasn't aware that we were bickering, I thought Ayn Rand and I was having a friendly discussion and expressing our views, but hey, you being the professional would know best. Sorry AynRand, for getting us into trouble. Guess I had better stop now before I am sent to my corner for bickering and acting like an old lady (your description akboss, not mine).

To begin with the Electoral College was installed centuries ago when the USA was in its childhood. Then, in order to tally the votes “districts” were assigned. The votes were thrown on the ‘pony express’ and delivered.

The only way for a free country to tally votes is on a one-man-one-vote basis; thereby voiding districting; this, of course, would do away with the Electoral College, as it should.

I do believe the pony express went out of business many years ago due to modern technology and methods.

Your statement regarding the Electoral College is factually incorrect.

There was no plan devised for "districts" in regard to the electoral college. Delegates were selected by state legislatures, now it is a party based activity to select delegates for the most part. If no person is a clear cut winner then states vote on the Unit Rule - each state delegation gets 1 vote and athe winner must receive a maj0rity (26) to win.

The Electoral College only determines who will be the president.

In regard to "districts" or "single - member districts"

"First Requirement for Single-Member Districts

This arrangement changed with an apportionment act in 1842 (5 Stat. 491). This act set the House membership at 223 members and contained a requirement for single-member districts. It stated that representatives "should be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of representatives to which said state may be entitled, no one district electing more than one representative." Thus single-member districts were officially instituted by Congress."

I'm not exactly sure why you posted about the electoral college on an article about Federal Congressional District lines.

More than finding the Texas legislature's redistricting "illegal" they said that there was "intentional racial discrimination" on the part of the Texas legislature in a 3-0 ruling. Imagine that. I am sure Sleaziger won't take any blame even though he was one of the two head honchos in charge of redistricting. Two of these Judges who made this ruling were George W. Bush appointees and one was an Obama appointee.

Per the current laws in effect (which are the cause for this entire debacle), counties are split up to meet the population requirements. If anyone wants this controversy to end, propose to change the law to mandate that no county is “cut up”.

For those unaware, the ONLY aspect to redistricting that has ever been contested is how individual counties are cut up. If everyone can live with a few districts being off by a hundred thousand people, and mandate that NO county will be split, then this whole issue will go away.

By the way, NO redistricting maps have been passed without interference of the federal court since the 1965 Voter’s Rights Act was passed.